STATE OF M P Vs. KRISHNA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant/state under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the award dated 18.11.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sironj, District Vidisha (Shri G.S. Kakodia) in M.J.C. No. 01.2005. The facts in brief of the case are that the agricultural land of the respondent situated in Village Rusiya Tehsil Lateri District Vidisha bearing Survey No. 340/1 area 0.893 hectare, Survey No. 341/1 area 2.099 hectare, Survey No. 337/2/3 area 1.770 Hectare Min Area 0.380, Survey No. 338 area 0.847 Hectare min 0.807 hectare and Survey No. 339 Min area 0.594 total area 4.766 Hectare was acquired by the appellant/State vide notification under Section 4 of the Act on 15.05.2004. Thereafter, the notification under Section 6 of the Act was also issued on 1.8.2004. The possession of the land was taken and Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation of the irrigated land at Rs. 1,05,000/- per hectare and for unirrigated land at Rs. 70,000/- per hectare and passed an award on 3.9.2004 under different heads. Thereafter, the respondent submitted an application before the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 18 of the Act for making reference before the District Judge stating therein that the amount of compensation was too meagre and the compensation had wrongly been assessed without considering proper price of the land on the date of notification under Section 6 of the Act. The respondent had further averred that the market value of the land and number of trees standing on the acquired land as well as the well existing on the land have not been taken into account in the assessment of the amount of compensation. Hence, prayed for additional compensation and interest thereon @ 12% per annum under Section 23(1-A) of the Act including solatium and 9% interest from the date of acquisition of land.

(2.) On notice being issued, appellant/state put in an appearance and filed reply denying the allegations made in the said application further stating that the land was not irrigated land and no tree was in existence on the land on the date of acquisition. It was submitted that the compensation was rightly assessed and hence, prayed for dismissal of the application.

(3.) Learned Court below recording statements of the parties but without calling the relevant record from Land Acquisition Officer, has enhanced the compensation, hence, this appeal.